Scipio

The general wisdom about nuclear prolif is that it's something to be avoided, and that the US should exercise policies designed to prevent it.

This year I got paired up with an exchange student for a roommate. He's from Morocco, and we were talking about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Being the good dem that I am, I noted that Bush's policy of attacking Iraq took attention away from the actual proliferation risks in the world, ie Iran, Pakistan, and NK. I suppose that's a fair enough statement, and world events support that supposition.

Here's where it gets interesting (and I'm going to elaborate on his argument a bit). He said that nuclear weapons are a responsibility. If Iran gets them, it will be greatly constrained from actually using them in an overt way. Why does Iran want them in the first place? If we take a realist perspective, and assume that they're acting rationally, they are seeing that countries with nuclear weapons get respect (ie Pakistan), and countries without them (ie Iraq), are vulnerable. The only surefire way to guarantee security is to get nukes, and that's what Iran has done. Further, we can assume that Iran has no intention of using them. They are too valuable to Iran the state to pass them on to terrorists. The consequences of use are too catastrophic to contemplate. What is certain, however, is that the mere possession of them as a form of potential energy has profound geopolitical consequences.

So, what do you guys think about this line of argument? Is proliferation really so bad? I'm not so sure myself, but I find it quite interesting.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."